those if it's in the he it, it's in the context of that that the joint chiefs of staff chairman joe dunford, called his russian counterpart shortly before the strike and syria, as he had done the year before, to say, look, you see what's happened here with this chemical weapons attacked by the assad government and just want you to know that we're not going to sit idly by so that you know, you need to look out for your russian forces. we understood fully and i think that's what madison is saying, that if we were not careful that there might be collateral damage, which we didn't want. this was not in any sense, and rush was aimed that the assad regime all be that you said the pigeon was lying about it not being a chemical attack. you also say in the book that actually did. that's right. that was the russian position, and that was incorrect, isn't it all the evidence indicated? yeah, obviously, very controversial. but you do mentioned in the book with antonio gutierrez, who slammed the strike for not having un security council approval. it was being ridiculous, kind of symptomatic of the fact